RationalWiki talk:All things in moderation/Archive75

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 2 May 2024. Please do not make edits to this page.

Null and void deletion of an article

Contrary to what was claimed, the article about BadEmpanada was not a puff piece, as it also included his disputes with streamers like Vaush and Kurzgesagt as well as this video, which details the accusations of antisemitism against him in regards to Israel. Not to mention, his Holodomor video was also cited, which was heavily scrutinized for supposed genocide denial. I also literally clarified that BadEmpanada having an article is beneficial for RW's missionality, due to his stance on Zionist propaganda, American exceptionalism, and Latin American history as well as his political disputes like his one with LonerBox on Israel-Palestine, which were all completely ignored in favor of personal biases. Plus, Vaush and Destiny have plenty of videos responding to BadEmpanada. If you want someone critically analyzing his claims, Aztlan Historian is a prime example.

Before you shut me down for having lost the debate, the points presented that stated how the article could have improved RW's missionality have been ignored and it met most of Plutocow's prerequisites for its existence, such as having a bunch of videos, citing other opposing videos, and Vaush's accounts that detail his supposed antisemitism. DaRealPrinceZuko (talk) 22:21, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

None of this matters, the article was fairly deleted by an AfD vote, which is the proper procedure and you don't get to try to overturn the outcome just because you don't like the reasoning of the delete voters. Unless you have an actual case, I would recommend swiftly archiving this. Plutocow (talk) 22:26, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
Then why did you ignore my points of the article meeting your prerequisites for its existence and not debunk my reasonings for why it could be beneficial for RW's missionality? DaRealPrinceZuko (talk) 22:31, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
Random blogs and YouTube videos are not good sources. But regardless, none of this matters because this is not a moderation issue. Won't archive this because I'm involved, but someone else should. Plutocow (talk) 22:34, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
You guys seem incredibly inconsistent with your sourcing policies, as there are several articles with YouTube videos and Twitter posts cited as sources, such as those of Shaun and PragerU. Laci Green is another example of a YouTuber whose controversies are not included in her article (i.e. her disputes with Sargon of Akkad), save for a series of death threats. DaRealPrinceZuko (talk) 23:18, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
This is fucking archived, stop editing. You might want to read RationalWiki:What is a RationalWiki article? Plutocow (talk) 23:24, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

The Krusty Krab

Uploaded a likely AI-generated audio file smearing a living person (that is currently at AfD), and also has a history of smearing living YouTubers. It's time to ask if this is really a good-faith user. Plutocow (talk) 20:16, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

It could just be a case of "garbage info in, garbage info out". I'm not entirely sure if two incidents is enough to question good faith. --Luigifan18 (talk) 20:22, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
At a bare minimum they need to stop instantly believing whatever some internet random tells them. Both MatPat and MrBeast seem to have a history of being at least mildly pro LGBT so it's not like it was impossible to figure out these were likely fake. Chillpilled (talk) 20:31, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
I deleted the file. Unattributed hate speech does not belong on RW. Bongolian (talk) 20:36, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
I'd support a 3 weeks block, but since this person is not here very often maybe this is not the right alternative. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 20:52, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
They're periodically active, so a vandal bin might be more effective. Bongolian (talk) 20:57, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
We should also remove their autopatrolled, I did it before but it was reinstated by Carthage for some reason. Plutocow (talk) 20:58, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
That would make them unable to respond here, by the way. Chillpilled (talk) 21:02, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Autopatrolled =/= autoconfirmed. Plutocow (talk) 21:08, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
I thought they had learned their lesson, as they hadn't made any bad faith edits, at least not in my eyes, for some time before I gave them autopatrolled. It was tiresome to constantly patrol the edits of a harmless, seemingly good faith user. Carthage (talk) 21:34, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
There is (or was as now deleted) the mess that was Essay:Why SpongeBob is Racist And Why You Should Be Concerned created by them back in August 2023. Lavalizard101 (talk) 21:29, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
I am not happy that said AfD was opened/closed in the spece of 73 mins. KarmaPolice (talk) 23:29, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Given the content, extreme hate speech with no attribution, and no copyright template, I stand by my decision to delete it on sight. Such rubbish uploads do not need a vote. Bongolian (talk) 23:44, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Good post! - Rairyu75 (Talk) 23:51, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Okay, am I right to assume here that said AfD was closed because Bongolian decided to nuke the thing off their own bat? KarmaPolice (talk) 23:57, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, although the way the vote was going would have justified a speedy delete. Plutocow (talk) 23:59, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────block me permanently. im too gullible for this siteThe Krusty Krab (talk) 18:00, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

You are always welcome to LANCB. Bongolian (talk) 18:17, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Also this says why matpat is transphobic. — Unsigned, by: The Krusty Krab / talk / contribs
I think we can close this now. Krusty Krab LANCBed, was promoted by Plutocow, and vandal binned by me. Bongolian (talk) 19:35, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Er that tumblr link soes not contain transphobia as far as I can tell. Lavalizard101 (talk) 19:38, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
The general gist I got from the Reddit mill is that apparently MatPat made a joke using some "'attack helicopter'" meme thing (which is seen as transphobic by some); MatPat apologized later. Matpat also apparently sometimes misgenders. The general gist I seem to get as well is that this by and large is seen as sins of stupidity / ignorance instead of actual transphobia. That's all I know, I have zero involvement in the Youtube scene, and Reddit gossip searches like this are generally only reliable (slightly) for taking the temperature of the social media mob. BobJohnson (talk) 20:44, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Minor change in CS

One thing we should do while we're at it is change the CS from "Artificial intelligence-generated images are completely banned from RationalWiki." to "Artificial intelligence-generated files are completely banned from RationalWiki." This will also ban AI-generated audio and videos, among other things. Since it's technically a change to CS it requires a vote here, but it's common sense and I expect it to be uncontroversial. Plutocow (talk) 21:34, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

It's a good change. But on second thought, it may be better to refine it a bit more, similarly to how text is treated. After all, if we write more about generative AI we'd probably want to provide some examples (like images with too many fingers and other signs of fakery, if we want to describe how to spot fakes etc.).
So another possible wording could be: "Artificial intelligence-generated media files (images, audio, video, etc.) are likewise banned from RationalWiki – except if used to describe AI itself, give examples of fakes, etc." Otherwise it may grow stifling for skeptical purposes later. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 23:30, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
P.S. The word "likewise" refers to the previous CS paragraph about text. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 23:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
I agree. The Krusty Krab (talk) 18:44, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Voting on sanctions for The Krusty Krab

This vote has been closed. Please do not add, remove or change votes.
The result of this vote was: The Krusty Krab is banned for pi weeks, is sysoprevoked, and is topic banned from articles on Youtubers.

Pi weeks ban

  1. I mean, there's only so much uncited hearsay this wiki can tolerate… (I'd be more comfortable issuing a 1-week ban or something that could be properly called a "slap on the wrist", but that's just me.) --Luigifan18 (talk) 20:43, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
  2. I'm fine with this, while they are currently vandal binned they are still infrequent enough that a longer block may be helpful. Regardless of whether it's intentional, them posting unsubstantiated crap and AI garbage is undistinguishable from trolling. Plutocow (talk) 20:47, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
  3. We're not babysitWiki (he acts like a 14 year old).Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 09:01, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
  4. -- Techpriest (talk) 09:16, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
  5. Likely not here to build an encyclopedia, does not listen --Goatspeed. Stalk meCircularREmail2.gifasoningSee my experiments 20:01, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
    I thought RationalWiki wasn't aiming to be an encyclopedia… --Luigifan18 (talk) 20:53, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
  1. Chillpilled (talk) 20:33, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
  2. Carthage (talk) 15:39, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Pi months ban

  1. Chillpilled (talk) 20:33, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
  2. Carthage (talk) 15:39, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
  3. I know this isn't the first time this has happened, but it doesn't seem like the fifth time or something ridiculous like that, either. --Luigifan18 (talk) 17:21, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
  4. Excessive --Goatspeed. Stalk meCircularREmail2.gifasoningSee my experiments 20:01, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
  1. Not yet. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 13:41, 8 March 2024 (UTC)


  1. I want this, please i'm to gullible for this place. The Krusty Krab (talk) 15:01, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
  2. In addition to the audio file there is the AI crap essay space: Essay:Why SpongeBob is Racist And Why You Should Be Concerned (which should never have been created). This show that the user is not aligned with the purpose of RW, as its not just youtube related stuff. Lavalizard101 (talk) 15:09, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
  3. Requested by user. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 18:26, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
  1. Even though it's requested I'd have preferred if they just stopped with the weird YouTuber rumors and maybe found ways to contribute to the wiki. Chillpilled (talk) 20:33, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
  2. Extreme gullibilitybad faith. --Luigifan18 (talk) 20:45, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
  3. Carthage (talk) 15:40, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
  4. Requested but I wouldn’t say he should be permanently not welcome here --Goatspeed. Stalk meCircularREmail2.gifasoningSee my experiments 20:01, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
  1. Mixed. While the offences aren't enough to justify a permaban yet in my book, the fact that the user requested one means I can't be reasonably opposed. Plutocow (talk) 20:24, 7 March 2024 (UTC)


  1. Can't even be trusted with autopatrolled permissions. Plutocow (talk) 20:36, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
  2. I want to say "no", but Plutocow hit the nail on the head. --Luigifan18 (talk) 20:46, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
  3. Supporting specifically because of trust issues regarding autopatrolled. -- Techpriest (talk) 09:16, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
  4. cosmikdebris talk stalk 14:06, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
  5. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 14:49, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
  6. Bongolian (talk) 01:55, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
  7. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 18:26, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
  1. Chillpilled (talk) 20:33, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
  2. Disproportionate. Carthage (talk) 15:40, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
  1. Would be a preemptive one if it passes, as they thankfully haven't had sysop before (although such preemptive sanctions have passed before, see Neil). Given that they can't seem to hold onto autopatrolled, maybe not the worst idea. Plutocow (talk) 20:24, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Topic ban from YouTubers

  1. Chillpilled (talk) 20:33, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
  2. Can't even be bothered to do basic research; the guy is a walking BLP violation. Plutocow (talk) 20:55, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
    What's BLP? --Luigifan18 (talk) 21:38, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
    wp:blpWikipediaIoe bidome (talk) 21:43, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
  3. -- Techpriest (talk) 09:16, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
  4. Yes. He keeps accusing people of either being Nazis or Homophobic without solid evidence. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 14:46, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
  5. Carthage (talk) 15:41, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
  6. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 18:24, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
  1. Maybe a bit too extreme right now, and I'm inclined to be merciful to someone acting in good faith… but I might change my mind if this kind of shit happens again. --Luigifan18 (talk) 20:52, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
  1. If this is to be helpful, it'd have to apply to pages outside mainspace, as many of their worst edits happened outside of it. Plutocow (talk) 20:24, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Voting on proposed changes to CS

This vote has been closed. Please do not add, remove or change votes.
The result of this vote was: Both changes pass unanimously.

Reminder: changes to CS require a two-thirds supermajority to pass. Plutocow (talk) 20:27, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

@Plutocow, can you clarify what we are voting on here? Are "Ban all AI-generated files" and "Allow AI files to be used as an example of AI fakery" mutually exclusive votes, or is the second vote an exemption from the first vote? In other words did you actually mean "Allow AI files only to be used as an example of AI fakery"? Bongolian (talk) 20:59, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
As I explained previously: Vote 1 amends the currently existing ban on AI-generated images to also extend to AI-generated audio, video, and other files. Vote 2 amends the currently existing ban on AI-generated images to allow the images to be used to demonstrate AI fakery, basically giving it the same clause that currently applies to the ban on AI-generated text. If both pass, the ban will basically be "all AI-generated files (images, videos, audio, etc.) are banned except to demonstrate AI fakery". Plutocow (talk) 21:04, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Ban all AI-generated files (instead of only banning images)

  1. Would include audio, videos, etc. as well as images. Easy vote to close this loophole. Plutocow (talk) 20:24, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
  2. I think this is so obvious that nobody would fault you for extrapolating this from the rule as it was already written. Chillpilled (talk) 20:35, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
  3. Easy vote. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 20:40, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
    Hold up, aren't "ban all AI files" and "allow only examples of AI fakery" mutually exclusive? Why are people voting "yay" to both of them? --Luigifan18 (talk) 20:49, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
    If I remember right, there was an exclusion clause in the original rule that 'AI content can be used to illustrate what AI content can be like'. Even if it can't be anywhere else [though to be honest, how the hell does RW plan to find such stuff?] KarmaPolice (talk) 20:58, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
    That applies to AI-generated text, not images; if you want it to apply to images see the below vote. Plutocow (talk) 21:00, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
  4. BobJohnson (talk) 21:04, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
  5. ApooftGnegiol (talk) 23:40, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
  6. --RWRW (talk) 01:35, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
  7. -- Techpriest (talk) 09:16, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
  8. Absolutely. Spud (talk) 15:25, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
  9. I'm surprised this wasn't already on the rules sheet. I would think a ban on AI-generated writing and images would logically lead to all AI-generated content being sworn off. Regardless, a big "yes" from me. Sincerely, Postuhenin the neurodivergent doodlebug! (say hi! ^^) 04:57, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
  10. Carthage (talk) 15:42, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
  11. -Flandres (talk) 03:22, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
  12. Yes, with the exception specified below. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 18:28, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
  13. IluzalsipalStone them! 21:34, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
  14. Antivoid (talk) 00:24, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
  1. I don't want to say no to all AI-generated files, but I'm still scarred by that image of a Nazi kid using a burning Jew as a skateboard. --Luigifan18 (talk) 20:27, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
    Said files will still have to pass basic decency etc rules, I assume. KarmaPolice (talk) 21:21, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
  2. Do we have such images on the site? Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 15:07, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Allow AI files to be used as an example of AI fakery

  1. As AI-generated misinformation is likely to increase, it might be helpful to allow us to examine AI files so they can be debunked. Plutocow (talk) 20:24, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
  2. I guess. Chillpilled (talk) 20:35, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
  3. Similar use case to our exposing of various fake news providers. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 20:40, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
  4. Yes. Bongolian (talk) 20:50, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
  5. BobJohnson (talk) 21:04, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
  6. Defently yes.Koafox (talk) 21:20, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
  7. Consistency is best, unless there's a good reason for it not to be. And in this case, I don't see it. Widen the 'AI text can be used to illustrate what AI text can be like' exception to all AI content. KarmaPolice (talk) 21:27, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
  8. Yep. Panzerfaust (talk) 23:11, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
  9. ApooftGnegiol (talk) 23:40, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
  10. I kind of already did this, except in that case it was more an example of AI being used to generate offensive content and give the alt-right a cheeky giggle at the expense of… well, everyone else. (Anyone who seriously thinks the freakin' Holocaust was a happy-go-lucky Disney adventure needs to be kicked in the head.) --Luigifan18 (talk) 23:58, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
  11. --RWRW (talk) 01:36, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
  12. --Francium (talk) 03:41, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
  13. I concur, assuming common sense and decency is to be observed. Blakegripling ph (talk) 08:23, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
  14. Thought this was already the case, but yes if the clarification helps, let's do this. -- Techpriest (talk) 09:16, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
  15. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 14:48, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
  16. Sincerely, Postuhenin the neurodivergent doodlebug! (say hi! ^^) 04:57, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
  17. Examples seem to be an acceptable use. Lavalizard101 (talk) 15:10, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
  18. Carthage (talk) 15:38, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
  19. Having a no-exceptions ban on AI-generated images seems excessive. AI art has become a common means of spreading propaganda and disinformation. There is clear missional value in featuring select examples of AI propaganda. It can help readers fine tune their baloney detectors and sometimes it's just funny. Shouldn't pose any issues as long as the images are clearly marked as fake. Noodles (talk) 22:11, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
  20. Seems pretty obvious to me.-Flandres (talk) 03:22, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
  21. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 18:27, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
  22. Spud (talk) 14:07, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
  23. I don't see why not. TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 18:38, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
  24. IluzalsipalStone them! 21:34, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
  1. Basically, if this passes it would make the policy on AI images the same as the policy on AI-generated text, whereas currently AI images are banned with no apparent exceptions. Plutocow (talk) 20:24, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
  2. Hold up, aren't "ban all AI files" and "allow only examples of AI fakery" mutually exclusive? --Luigifan18 (talk) 20:48, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
    No, the first just adds video and audio to the current ban on AI images, while the latter amends said ban to allow use of said files to be used for the purpose of debunking fakery. Plutocow (talk) 20:51, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
    Ah. So like that fake Pixar movie poster someone made of a Nazi kid using a Jewish corpse as a surfboard jumping a ramp of dead Jew corpses in a concentration camp. (Yes, I actually fucking saw that. Yes, I uploaded it here as an example of AI art technology being used for depraved purposes.) --Luigifan18 (talk) 20:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Clarifying when it's acceptable to edit someone else's userpage

While we're on the subject of CS changes, we might want to clarify something that's been bothering me for a while. The CS isn't clear on what's allowed on userpages, only saying that there are "common-sense-exceptions", which we have an article explaining why this is simply not adequate. For example, on many wikis it's completely acceptable to remove redlinks from other people's userpages so they don't show up in Special:WantedPages, so they may consider it "common sense" to remove them even though here we generally don't mind. We have had a few disputes over what is considered "common sense" to remove from userpages, so it's probably best to outline when it is allowed or disallowed to edit someone else's userspace. Here are my suggestions, although feel free to debate them:

  • Allowed:
    • Removing spam, vandalism, plagiarism, and violations of interaction bans
    • Removing categories meant for mainspace pages
    • Fixing a page's formatting so it doesn't show up in any of the maintenance categories
    • Adding {{banned}} and {{deceased}}, when necessary
  • Disallowed unless you have permission:
    • Fixing spelling and grammar, as well as any formatting fixes not otherwise allowed
    • Removing redlinks
  • Gray area:
    • Offensive content. While obvious trolling/vandalism should be removed, if you're unsure take it with the mob.

Plutocow (talk) 16:36, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

That's exactly what I would consider common sense. And exactly the guidelines I've followed in the past. Spud (talk) 15:31, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
Common sense to us maybe, but not to newcomers, which is the point of clarifying CS. Plutocow (talk) 19:24, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Vote on clarifying CS rules on userspace (please read)

This vote has been closed. Please do not add, remove or change votes.
The result of this vote was: Removing spam, vandalism, iban violations, and mainspace categories, fixing pages that are in maintenance categories, and adding the banned and deceased templates are allowed, spelling and grammar fixes as well as removing redlinks are not allowed without permission.

Each of these votes has three options. "Explicitly allowed" means it will be listed in CS as an example of when it's acceptable to edit someone else's userspace, while "explicitly disallowed" means it will be mentioned as an example of when it isn't acceptable to edit someone else's userspace without permission. "Status quo" means it simply won't be mentioned either way. As this is a vote for a change to CS, a two-thirds supermajority is required for the "explicitly allowed" and "explicitly disallowed" options to pass; any vote that fails to reach a supermajority will default to "status quo". Plutocow (talk) 19:24, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Removing spam

Explicitly allowed
  1. Merely a formality. Plutocow (talk) 19:24, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
  2. Bongolian (talk) 00:21, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
  3. cosmikdebris talk stalk 14:40, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
  4. Spud (talk) 14:53, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
  5. Lavalizard101 (talk) 15:11, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
  6. I wouldn't want my userpage being covered in junk links. --Luigifan18 (talk) 16:44, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
  7. Chillpilled (talk) 18:14, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
  8. Carthage (talk) 02:03, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
  9. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 22:08, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
  10. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 18:11, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
  11. -- Techpriest (talk) 10:08, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
  12. IluzalsipalStone them! 21:34, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
  13. Antivoid (talk) 00:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
  14. I do think it would be nice to define specifically what constitutes spam, but I'm for this change regardless. Sincerely, Postuhenin the neurodivergent doodlebug! (say hi! ^^) 03:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
Explicitly disallowed
Status quo

Removing vandalism

Explicitly allowed
  1. Merely a formality. Plutocow (talk) 19:24, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
  2. Bongolian (talk) 00:21, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
  3. cosmikdebris talk stalk 14:40, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
  4. Spud (talk) 14:53, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
  5. As someone whose user page was vandalised while I was not online (happened close to midnight after I had signed off). Lavalizard101 (talk) 15:13, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
  6. I flat-out had to have my user page protected… --Luigifan18 (talk) 16:45, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
  7. Chillpilled (talk) 18:14, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
  8. Carthage (talk) 02:03, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
  9. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 22:08, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
  10. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 18:11, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
  11. -- Techpriest (talk) 10:08, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
  12. IluzalsipalStone them! 21:34, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
  13. Sincerely, Postuhenin the neurodivergent doodlebug! (say hi! ^^) 03:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
Explicitly disallowed
Status quo

Removing plagiarism

Explicitly allowed
  1. Might need a little clarification, as I don't think copypasting your Wikipedia userpage is that big a deal, but otherwise merely a formality. Plutocow (talk) 19:24, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
  2. I know courts of law have ruled that people can plagiarize themselves, but I think copypasting something you've written yourself elsewhere is fine. Any other plagiarism is not. Spud (talk) 14:53, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
  3. As long as its not removing copypasting written by self [As I have done on my userpage, copying my Wikipedia userpage opening paragraph]. Lavalizard101 (talk) 15:16, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
Explicitly disallowed
Status quo
  1. Plagiarism is not illegal unless it violates copyright (i.e., substantive amounts were copied). It is however unethical. Bongolian (talk) 00:21, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
  2. There could be any number of reasons to copy public domain or otherwise free to use works onto userspace. Unless someone is importing strangely high amounts of such content for no apparent reason (basically spam) I don't know why it'd be a problem. Chillpilled (talk) 18:14, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
  3. I only see “plagiarism” really only applying to writing the user is trying pass of as a work of their own, either in an essay, or within main-space articles. A lot of users don’t treat their userpage that seriously. I can see this becoming an over zealous practice of removing song-lyrics or something if explicitly allowed. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 22:13, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
  4. Too many edge cases, I think. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 18:17, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
  5. Per Bongolian. As long as it doesn't violate site rules to post (which includes copyright), plagiarism isn't a bannable offense.— Unsigned, by: Techpriest / talk / contribs }
  6. It depends on the source of plagiarism, as copyright violations would have to be deleted and, more likely than not, stricken from the edit logs. But plagiarism from wiki articles, public domain/CC0 sources, or other such things would hardly be worth removing from someone's own user page, however much of a red flag it may be. Sincerely, Postuhenin the neurodivergent doodlebug! (say hi! ^^) 03:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Removing content that violates interaction bans

Explicitly allowed
  1. Technically, the CS doesn't provide an enforcement mechanism beyond ATIM. So this can be seen as "you can enforce interaction bans without going to ATIM", which I think is fair. Plutocow (talk) 19:24, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
  2. For the best. Spud (talk) 14:53, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
  3. I assume having something on your userpage like "I have an interaction ban with X" to simply notify others (and not to also add opinionated comments about the ban I suppose) in a visible place doesn't count. Chillpilled (talk) 18:14, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
  4. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 18:12, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
  5. -- Techpriest (talk) 10:08, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
  6. Sincerely, Postuhenin the neurodivergent doodlebug! (say hi! ^^) 03:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
Explicitly disallowed
Status quo
  1. Bongolian (talk) 05:10, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
  2. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 22:14, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
  1. Does this apply retroactively to content already in userspace before a ban? Bongolian (talk) 00:21, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
    Presumably yes. Plutocow (talk) 00:44, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
    I think that might be problematic since for example we wouldn't alter the talk pages that led to the interaction bans. Bongolian (talk) 01:53, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
    An iban prevents users from "Referenc[ing] them anywhere on RationalWiki, directly or indirectly", which presumably includes userspace. We leave talkpages archived, but we don't do so for user pages so I don't see why they should fall under the same exemption. Plutocow (talk) 02:42, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
  2. I… I'm not entirely sure why someone would want to mention users they're ibanned with on their userpage. I'm not quite sure which way to vote, because I want to believe there could be legitimate reasons, but I'm leaning towards "allowed" because I think it'd be silly to allow users to make "enemies lists"; that's the kind of thing a right-wing outrage collector would do. --Luigifan18 (talk) 16:53, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
    We had a user who, whilst not IBANned at the time, ended up making a hitlist of other editors he wanted gone from the wiki. That's the type of content I think this is referencing. -- Techpriest (talk) 10:08, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
    I don't know of that user, but yes, that is indeed the kind of behavior I'm talking about when I mentioned making "enemies lists". In any case, it's silly at best. --Luigifan18 (talk) 13:52, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Removing categories meant for mainspace pages

Explicitly allowed
  1. They'd be pointless if we allowed any userspace nonsense to be in them. Plutocow (talk) 19:24, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
  2. This should preferably be done by commenting-out the categories, rather than removal (i.e., minimal intervention). Bongolian (talk) 00:21, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
  3. cosmikdebris talk stalk 14:42, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
  4. A good idea to leave a talk page message for the user saying what you did and why you did it. Spud (talk) 14:53, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
  5. Yeah. Lavalizard101 (talk) 15:18, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
  6. It'd be pretty weird seeing random users in mainspace categories. I do think we need an exemption for sub-userpages that are written to function like draftspace or essayspace, though. --Luigifan18 (talk) 16:53, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
    Mainspace categories aren't supposed to be in drafts or essays either, though they can just be commented out in those cases. Plutocow (talk) 17:23, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
    We also have {{draft categories}} for use on draft pages, its use can be recommended in place of commenting categories out as it keeps them listed. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 18:42, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
  7. I could see exceptional circumstances but overall they should be separate. Chillpilled (talk) 18:14, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
  8. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 22:11, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
  9. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 18:18, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
  10. Per Bongolian. -- Techpriest (talk) 10:08, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
  11. I wish this was a global standard for all wikis on the entire Internet. Though the line is a bit fuzzier with RW in my opinion, I still think this would be a good standard to have. Sincerely, Postuhenin the neurodivergent doodlebug! (say hi! ^^) 03:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
Explicitly disallowed
Status quo
  1. Do note that sometimes categories can appear due to applying a mainspace template in userspace. In that case, modify the template to detect if it's in userspace (ParserFunctions can do that) so that it doesn't transclude the category. -- Techpriest (talk) 10:08, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
  2. Just saw the user:Summa Atheologica is on the "userbox" category. Should we remove it? GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 23:44, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
  3. @Summa Atheologica also has at least one other inappropriate category on their user page (Category:Moderators). It should also be noted for this vote that some categories on user pages are appropriate, e.g. Moderators for current moderators, and some user-specific categories such as Category:Sluts, which we had a vote regarding a while back. Bongolian (talk) 23:58, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
    The whole category is a mess. Even RationalWiki:All things in moderation/Marcus Cicero is there, but the only actual mod is Spud. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 00:28, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Fixing pages so they don't show up in maintenance categories

Explicitly allowed
  1. Bad formatting should be explicitly disallowed when it causes technical issues to the wiki. Plutocow (talk) 19:24, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
  2. Bongolian (talk) 00:21, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
  3. cosmikdebris talk stalk 14:41, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
  4. Spud (talk) 14:53, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
  5. Yeah we shouldn't leave them in maintenance categories just bc its a user page and others shouldn't edit it. Lavalizard101 (talk) 15:19, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
  6. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 18:19, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
  7. Within some amount of reason. I've removed double redirects from userspace before because it messes up certain tasks. We don't really care about the red links list though, so that one is a maintenance category we don't care for.— Unsigned, by: Techpriest / talk / contribs
  8. Sincerely, Postuhenin the neurodivergent doodlebug! (say hi! ^^) 03:21, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
Explicitly disallowed
Status quo

Adding the banned and deceased templates when necessary

Explicitly allowed
  1. Not a situation that comes up often, but useful to have the green light for when it does. Plutocow (talk) 19:24, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
  2. Bongolian (talk) 00:21, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
  3. Spud (talk) 14:53, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
  4. Could help keep track of banned and deceased users. Lavalizard101 (talk) 15:21, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
  5. If someone's enough of a bigoted, fascistic, cranky, and/or woophilic asshole to get themselves banned with extreme prejudiceWikipedia and earn a spot on the "Pissed at us" list (lookin' at you, Coombs), they're probably covering their user pages in nasty shit as well. --Luigifan18 (talk) 16:57, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
  6. Chillpilled (talk) 18:14, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
  7. I think it’s useful to categorize users who will be unable to respond from their userpage. Either as banned users, or even to memorialize them. I am kind of curious how we even come to determine a user had passed away to begin with. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 22:16, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
  8. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 18:21, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
  9. Standard procedure, might as well formalize it. -- Techpriest (talk) 10:08, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
  10. Sincerely, Postuhenin the neurodivergent doodlebug! (say hi! ^^) 03:21, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
Explicitly disallowed
Status quo

Fixing spelling and grammar errors

Explicitly allowed
Explicitly disallowed
  1. Not a big enough deal; spelling errors in the userspace don't really hurt anyone. Plutocow (talk) 19:24, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
  2. Bongolian (talk) 00:21, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
  3. If it bothers you, leave a polite message on the user's talk page about it. Spud (talk) 14:53, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
  4. Yeah, while annoying, spelling errors should be left in, doesn't hurt anyone. Lavalizard101 (talk) 15:22, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
  5. Someone might have even originally intended grammatical mistakes for whatever reason. Chillpilled (talk) 18:14, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
  6. Carthage (talk) 02:02, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
  7. That would be so annoying. There is also the issue of editorializing what is intended as personal posts. That may result in some transparency and communication issues later down the line. We see this already when we ourselves fix the writing of our own saloon bar posts. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 22:22, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
  8. I've been there myself, so. And mine wasn't a spelling error to begin with. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 12:54, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
  9. I write da English goodz. Nah, don't go around correcting bad grammar on other peoples userspace. -- Techpriest (talk) 10:08, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
  10. I'm a stickler for English, but some people will write things with intentionally bad grammar and it would be annoying as shit for someone to swoop in and keep "fixing" it over and over because the guidelines allowed them to. Plus, this could potentially open a loophole for other kinds of edit abuse. (Also, the word is "people's" with an apostrophe, Techie ^^) Sincerely, Postuhenin the neurodivergent doodlebug! (say hi! ^^) 03:21, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
Status quo
  1. I know I'm kind of a grammar stickler, but I don't see much issue in reaching out to touch up very blatant grammar and spelling errors that make the meaning of the writing unclear, as long as the author's original intent is preserved. I'm talking strictly proofreading-type adjustments here, for the benefit of editors who are dyslexic, aren't particularly fluent in English, or otherwise can't be relied on to fix their own mistakes without having their hand held; it would be preferable to reach out to the owner of the userspace first to raise their awareness and let them fix the problem themselves, but if they're not available for some reason and there's some serious error in their content that makes it difficult to read properly (like one word or phrase being used when a different word or phrase was clearly intended), any good-faith editor should be able to take the initiative to fix the issue (the key words here being "good faith"). I know grammar can be subjective, so I'll concede that editing another user's page just to make very minor tweaks like adding Oxford commas may not be a good idea. In any case, we shouldn't encourage the practice of editing other users' pages except when it's egregiously necessary, and explicitly allowing grammar touch-ups might count as "encouragement", so while I don't want to vote for "explicitly disallowed" and feel compelled to vote against it, I'm setting my own OCD aside and not voting for the "explicitly allowed" option here. --Luigifan18 (talk) 17:11, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
  2. I don’t mind somebody coming in and touching up some typos in the drafts I occasionally start. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 18:24, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
  • If you forbid it, that obviously applies to when permission hasn't explicitly been granted by the user whose space it is. I'd suggest to add a suggestion along with forbidding it, that users who do want others to fix things up in their userspace can write a note about it being welcome. (Maybe you can make a template to put on the userpage.) --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 18:53, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Formatting fixes not otherwise specified

Explicitly allowed
Explicitly disallowed
  1. Obviously fix formatting that causes technical problems and if the formatting is causing a page to show up in a category it should be fixed, but otherwise this is not too big a deal. Plutocow (talk) 19:24, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
  2. Bongolian (talk) 00:21, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
  3. Spud (talk) 14:53, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
  4. Chillpilled (talk) 18:14, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
  5. Per Plutocow's response. Sincerely, Postuhenin the neurodivergent doodlebug! (say hi! ^^) 03:21, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
Status quo
  1. I don’t think we need a specific rule about this. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 18:28, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
  2. Too broad of an exception for me to say anything either way. -- Techpriest (talk) 10:08, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
  3. Chillpilled (talk) 01:26, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Removing redlinks

Explicitly allowed
Explicitly disallowed
  1. RW does things a bit differently than most wikis, as redlinks are not allowed in mainspace but many people put them in their userspace for pages they want to create later. Thus, Special:WantedPages is not a good enough reason to allow this. Plutocow (talk) 19:24, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
  2. Bongolian (talk) 00:21, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
  3. If the red links were for things that would be hopelessly off-mission for RationalWiki, I'd leave a polite message on the user's talk page and tell them about the Wpl template. Spud (talk) 14:53, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
  4. redlinks could help the user whose userpage it is remind themselves of articles they plan on creating. Lavalizard101 (talk) 15:24, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
  5. Chillpilled (talk) 18:14, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
  6. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 18:21, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
  7. Redlinks aren't harmful and the "oh god so many redlinks" issue (although I don't think it really is one) permeates across the wiki, it's hardly exclusive to userspace. -- Techpriest (talk) 10:08, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
  8. Sincerely, Postuhenin the neurodivergent doodlebug! (say hi! ^^) 03:21, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
Status quo

Removing offensive content

Explicitly allowed
Explicitly disallowed
Status quo
  1. Bongolian (talk) 17:55, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
  2. Chillpilled (talk) 18:14, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
  3. Case-by-case. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 18:20, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
  4. Usually would land under other rules anyway/this is the sorta thing we have mod pages for anyway. -- Techpriest (talk) 10:08, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
  5. Sincerely, Postuhenin the neurodivergent doodlebug! (say hi! ^^) 03:21, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
  1. Has the problem of defining what counts as "offensive", though we should be able to take borderline cases to ATIM at least. Plutocow (talk) 19:24, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
  2. Who's to decide what counts as offensive? It's rather subjective. Bongolian (talk) 00:21, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
  3. In almost every case of this I've seen, the user in question is guilty of some other serious offense. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 14:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
  4. Best handled on a case-by-case basis. Let the user know what you think and discuss it here on the Mod noticeboard. Spud (talk) 14:55, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
  5. I know of some users on Wikipedia who post insults directed at them onto their userpage to laugh at them. Some people may want to do that here. Lavalizard101 (talk) 15:27, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
  6. “Offence” is too broad and subjective. I would rather more explicit standards for hate speech, harassment, and/or discriminatory behaviour against users who are members of disempowered populations. Standards like that though need to spelled out as clear as possible, to eliminate any ambiguity to when it applies. Even my feminist philosophy inspired stances or statements can be experienced as offensive to some. We don’t all have a good gauge of what will upset us, and tbh, I think that some degree of upset and offence is something we all have to experience to be well-rounded human beings. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 22:28, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Deceased and banned users at the RMF voter registration

I just checked RationalWiki:RationalMedia Foundation/Voter registration and I saw that there are some banned users, as well as at least two deceased users. I'd like to propose the removal of their names for obvious reasons: the first group could vote for users that aren't here in good faith, and the second can be used to rig the election if they get hacked or something. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 11:44, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I second that proposal. Spud (talk) 13:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Can you identify the proposed deletions beforehand so that people have a chance to contest any deletions? Bongolian (talk) 17:06, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Sure, here are the names:


  1. PsyGremlin
  2. Smerdis of Tlön


  1. RobSmith
  2. Oxyaena
  3. Neiltyson1fan
  4. GR
  5. D
  6. Arisboch
  7. Kosterortiizbrock
Hope I'm not missing anyone. Also, maybe I'm being too meticulous, but for historical reasons I think that we shouldn't simply remove them from the list. IMO either make a section of former voters or strikeout their names would be better since someone might wanna check which users are former voters. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 17:36, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
We might want to also do a bit of maintenance by making sure all the usernames are up to date as well. Plutocow (talk) 20:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
I think the names should be stricken out but with an explanation in parentheses. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 19:24, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Sounds like a plan. KarmaPolice (talk) 09:40, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
It does indeed. Spud (talk) 09:45, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
I support it. Bongolian (talk) 17:25, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Yep, it's good enough for me. Should we just implement it? I don't think we need a vote. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 14:08, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Please. Spud (talk) 15:33, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Do we need unanimous approval for this? Not sure if y'all are waiting on my input. CorruptUser 05:03, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Not sure, but either way, I support the strike-outs and explanations. Sincerely, Postuhenin the neurodivergent doodlebug! (say hi! ^^) 05:13, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Ow, my eyes

(Not quite sure if this is the right place, but anyways…) You know how I've mentioned that if I still had sysop tools, I wouldn't be above deleting revisions that are literal eyesores and interfere with performing activities such as reviewing page history? The recent edits by Latinx7PalestinianVideos are exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about — huge images imposed over articles and the site headers via <div> abuse that literally cover up the "previous edit" and "next edit" buttons (along with almost everything else, including the actual contents of the page) so that scrolling through the page history comes to a dead stop. Someone please get rid of that garbage. --Luigifan18 (talk) 16:36, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

My viewing of the offending accounts records etc tell me that Bongolian blocked within 10 mins and I assume also reversed the vandalism. Is this a 'passive tone' request for a resumption of sysop tools? KarmaPolice (talk) 18:44, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Not necessarily (that'd be nice, but I don't expect such a request to be granted after being in ATIM two months ago). I'm saying that such obstructive, eye-searing edits shouldn't even be kept in the fossil record, as they literally get in the way while clicking through past edits one-by-one, like a pop-up ad that completely covers a webpage you're trying to read. So, if anything, this is a request to revise our revision deletion policy. --Luigifan18 (talk) 18:52, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
@Luigifan18 I went to the fossil record and clicked on the vandalized version of the page from yesterday. I was then able to click away again immediately. What the fuck are you complaining about? Spud (talk) 07:39, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
As a person has to actively go into the fossil record to see it, it could be said it's partly self-inflicted. And how many people trawl the edit histories anyway? KarmaPolice (talk) 13:46, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
@Spud Were you able to use a button on the page, or did you have to use the back button? --Luigifan18 (talk) 14:18, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
On a PC / Chrome browser, you cannot see the previous edit / next edit button... but you can click the "fossil record" tab. So a vandal doing div style abuse is no big deal. BobJohnson (talk) 15:11, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
@Luigifan18 I used the back button on my browser. It was super easy. Barely even an inconvenience. The vandalism was also rolled back easily enough. I also have to agree with KarmaPolice. Hardly any of our readers will want to go looking at older versions of a page and even fewer of those would want to click anything on an older version of a page. The idea of deleting that silly vandal's edits so that they're no longer in the fossil record is just giving them pointless attention that they don't warrant. Spud (talk) 15:19, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Anatoly Karlin

So, there's this guy who came over on the Discord who turned out to be this guy, who had this to say. Thought I'd mention this, since there is only one mod on the Discord and he claims that he's no longer an alt-righter. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 20:37, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Is there like a policy or precedent for this type of situation? KarmaPolice (talk) 20:48, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Have they verified their identity? Looking back, it seems GrammarCommie was the one who banned them and not Dysklyver as they claimed, though Dysk did accuse them of sockpuppeting (was this during the time that they were abusing checkuser?). There are no hits on the Chicken Coop, and the only ATIM case mentioning them is banning an alleged sock of them, so there's not much to go off of there. Did they provide evidence that they're no longer alt-right as a show of good faith? Plutocow (talk) 21:02, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
I don't think the Wiki will gain anything by unbanning Anatoly Karlin. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 21:04, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
I don't see anything worthy of a ban in his edit history. The one thing worthy of a caution would be his single edit of the mainspace page about him. I would like to hear what @GrammarCommie has to say about the banning. A person should be allowed to provide verifiable evidence to us that anything about them on RW is incorrect. Nonetheless, I find it hard to believe that he is no longer a Putin fanboy. Bongolian (talk) 23:04, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Some BoN put this on my talkpage. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 09:03, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

This Karlin guy is still a eugenicist/far-right extremist and carnivore diet/keto troll. Only a few minutes ago on his Twitter he is defending Nathan Cofnas a far-right race realist who was just sacked from Emmanuel College [1]. Karlin associates heavily online with the far-right, he is not left-wing.
His recent talk at Vitalia only 2 months ago cites Emil Kirkegaard and Bo Winegard two of his heroes. He's never moved on. He is currently heavily associated with Aporia Magazine and was recently interviewed by a white nationalist Alex Kaschuta [2] in which he claims to have converted to the "big gae" which is obviously a trolling attempt. Despite now claiming to be pro LGBT he still identifies as an eugenicist and is still a proponent of racialism which he lectures on. He's lost a lot of support on Twitter because people have worked out he is unstable and changes his contradictory views every 5 minutes. He's a self confessed glue sniffer so it's hard to take most of what he says seriously. He is still very much involved with the alt-right community despite his claims to the contrary. I have not looked into his ban here but it should be noted this guy has been blocked hundreds of times on Wikipedia. If there was socking here I doubt he was innocent but we seem to be talking about events from years ago. His agenda is probably to try and get back on his article to white-wash any criticisms of his far-right views. Johns (talk) 11:27, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Well, you've convinced me. KarmaPolice (talk) 11:38, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Unfortunately there has been a recent grift by alt-right/far-right influencers who have come out and tried to deny their racist past and now claim to be left-wing in recent years. The most notable example of this is Richard Hanania. Karlin is close friends with Hanania and decided to copy his example. Another one that has tried this recently is Simon Webb. We all know the grift is nonsense because these influencers if you check their content and or social media it's still all the same far-right stuff they post. They also hang around with the same far-right followers like Bronze Age Pervert or Emil Kirkegaard so the claims about changing views are not genuine. They just try and re-package their eugenics or racism under a new name on their substack to try and pick up more followers. Even Richard Spencer came out last year and said he is no longer a white nationalist. It appears none of the far-right influencers want to use that term anymore. Johns (talk) 12:41, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Yes, they're not even particularly convincing about their purported changes of heart. Glue sniffing and other inhalants are among the stupider drugs to do.[3][4][5] It makes me want to break into song! Oh, wait, The Ramones already did that.[6] Bongolian (talk) 17:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
I remember that song. Glue sniffing used to be popular with skinheads and punks in London around 1982-1986, I remember seeing them. There is an interesting review here on the harmful effects of glue sniffing [7], neurological damage long-term. Karlin says he has been glue sniffing for a decade so he's probably gone mad. I think Karlin is trying to remove his name from the Aporia Magazine, or remove it from the lead on a couple of new accounts. It's probably worth watching these articles for a few days. Johns (talk) 00:17, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

He asked how things were progressing today and I posted a link to ATIM and this is his answer. I don't know what a Globohomo is and Johns is Oliver D. Smith, apparently. He has the pride and trans flag on his Discord profile and uses "it/it" as pronouns, if anyone cares. Oh and this guy showed up, saying that he also got banned for no reason and asked Anatoly to testify that it isn't one of his socks (wtf??). Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 16:23, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

His claims are all false, and the fact he claims to have joined "globalhomo" shows us all that he is a troll. Firstly, the Oliver Smith conspiracy theory originated on Abd Lomax's blog. Karlin and Kirkegaard both copied it from there without checking the facts. Lomax is now deceased.
Karlin has been banned many times on Wikipedia, just an example of one SPI [8]. He has had many more socks than that that have been blocked. He often uses Wikipedia to promote the carnivore diet and harass vegans and vegetarians. I see he has a "good hand" Wikipedia account that has not been blocked that he wants to keep. He says he doesn't support any particular diet, this is false. He supports the carnivore diet/keto diet/paleo diet for the last 10 years, telling people to eat more red meat [9]. He even has an entire webpage dedicated to the keto diet on his home website [10]. Here he is positively reviewing a paleo diet book for the neo-nazi UNZ Review [11] and he lists 9 paleo diet books on his website [12], all of these were written by quacks. As for Pintvonmilch this looks like just another sock, definitely not a new user [13]. The usual claims of impersonations and trolling have started appearing. We have had similar issues of this nonsensical drama in the past related to Kirkegaard or Lomax. The best thing to do would be to ignore Karlin and not play his game. Johns (talk) 17:23, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Karlin is trolling badly or off his rocker for saying he supports 'Globohomo' (globalization + homogenization): it's an alt-right slur (Alt-right glossary#Globohomo) that also insinuates antisemitism ('globalism') and the homosexual agenda ('homo'). I've unblocked User:Pintvonmilch for now. Sock of whom? Bongolian (talk) 17:34, 21 April 2024 (UTC) I see the alleged sock "Pint_vonmilch", but it's external to RW, I guess, so I don't see the problem. Bongolian (talk) 17:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC) The more informative link for Karlin's bans on WP is this one.[14] Bongolian (talk) 17:44, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Karlin says he was banned from discord [15] but he no longer lives in Russia so he probably just created a new account. He has tonnes of socks. I do not know what to make of Pint_vonmilch. The users edits on Aporia were to remove mention of the magazine being far-right and removing Karlin from the lead, that is very specific editing. I suspected the account to be Karlin or someone associated with him. Nobody has really edited the article since I created it. It's odd a bunch of brand new accounts would turn up to remove Karlin from the article within 12 hours of Karlin messaging RationalWiki on discord. How could that not be suspicious? I think we are being trolled. It's also been suggested the other socks might be Mikemikev. It's impossible to know either way. It just looks like similar drama and impersonations we have had before on this website, I have never seen anything good come out of it. I would be very surprised if Pint_vonmilch turns out to be a legit editor but as they have been unblocked, I guess time will tell. Johns (talk) 18:06, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I have looked more carefully at the edits on Aporia, and I agree that Pintvonmilch is likely Karlin (timing + nature of edits). I'll reblock. The socking also puts an end to and end to Karlin's appeal on his own account bein unblocked. Bongolian (talk) 18:17, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Close as moot since he socked? CDotSkelly (talk) 19:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, there's nothing more to be accomplished here. Plutocow (talk) 19:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Anatoly Karlin again

I received an email from Karlin today. In the interest of fairness, I am posting his email and opening up discussion again. Here is the body of the email:

Just noticed there is an email function here. So here's how this episode looks from my perspective:

(1) I do not use socks on RW and never have. But even if I did, why would I do that - with handles such as "Nooceleration" (my blog!) https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/User:Nooceleration that are an obvious dumb attempt to link them to me - to edit articles in the full knowledge that any such edits would be quickly reverted?

(2) Why would I choose Aporia as my edit target? I am not affiliated with Aporia. (I am inaccurately characterized as a WN within it, but I am inaccurately characterized throughout RW). I have no interest in editing Aporia beyond any other article on RW.

(3) Most importantly, why would I do this simultaneously with launching an appeal and basically guaranteeing it fails?

It's very obviously sabotage (ODS or possibly Mikemikev being the likeliest culprits). As an editor you are well aware that on Wikis anyone can pretend to be anybody. Many people were aware of the appeal, both here and on the Discord.

So what this looks like from my end is that you conspired to make it impossible for me to appeal the lies about me on my RW page by banning my account on false charges of sock puppeting back in 2019, and continue to keep it banned through this lame dog and pony show. Meanwhile, in the event I do create a second account, it will presumably be immediately banned as well for ban evasion.

Furthermore, you then seem to have decided to punish me for going through the standard appeal procedures in a conscientious and cooperative fashion by adding 7,000 more words of defamatory crap to my article (including implications of pedophilia from actual Neo-Nazi Colin Liddell).

So my modest questions are:

(1) I deny ever running sock puppets on RW (or Wikipedia). Is your position that I am lying and that you will confirm your decision to deny the unban appeal on this basis?

(2) If so, what are my actual remaining options to contest my RationalWiki article? (Knowing that any attempts to appeal the ban the official recommended way will be denied on the basis of sock puppeting claims, while creating a second account would be ban evasion and actual "sock puppeting").

(3) This is more idle curiosity than anything else, but even allowing that I was a White Nationalist in the mid to late 2010s - something I have consistently denied, and which very few people outside the Far Left ever described me as - on what basis do I have an article that is multiple times longer than, say, Richard B. Spencer? That is, the actual founder of the Alt Right (also domestic abuser, etc.), as opposed to someone who mentioned the n word a couple of times in ancient flame wars across millions of words of text on a blog of middling prominence? While it's not very funny to me personally, since RW's lies have substantively detracted from my quality of life, I have to admit it's very amusing from the side.

- Anatoly.

With regard to Aporia, there seems to be only statement that he would be writing for Aporia[16] and a small number of comments that he left on the site,[17] so I would support removing Karlin from the Aporia page at this point.

With regard to whether Karlin is a white nationalist, that is perhaps a bit grayer. The fact-checking site Polygraph.info, which we cited, did call him a white nationalist without elaborating on the label. A peer-reviewed paper, which we also cited,[18] called him an antisemite but did not call him a white nationalist but did refer to his association with white nationalist Richard Spencer. There is also the issue of what "Russian nationalism" means, which Karlin admits he supports. Russia is 80+% white according to Karlin,[19] so is Russian nationalism inherently white nationalism particularly when "Great Russians" (i.e., ethnic Russians) are the focus of Russian nationalism? The Wikipedia page on Russian nationalismWikipedia plausibly states that it has its roots white supremacy, but it is poorly cited.

As for socking, It could be the case that he hasn't done this since although there was a sock investigation on Wikipedia that banned a few socks, his main account is still active.[20]

We still have not heard from @GrammarCommie on the reason for the initial ban in 2019, but @Cosmikdebris also reblocked him today.[21]

As to the minor points: I did not add "7,000 more words of defamatory crap". I did add about 7000 characters, mostly cleaning up the page, especially citations. The page needs cleanup and there is substantial redundancy. Why is so much larger than Spencer's page? Perhaps there's more volume fo text to criticize. Bongolian (talk) 01:49, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree with him that it doesn't make sense he would sabotage his own appeal with the sock accounts (unless it was some elaborate trolling attempt but seems like a contrived explanation). Since he was banned for alleged socking rather than bigotry, in principle I see no reason against appealing if his interest is to post on the talk page about himself. Admittedly I'm not the most familiar with his case, especially the thing about the Wikipedia side of it. Chillpilled (talk) 02:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
User:Akarlin sent me the following email earlier today:

FWIW, I was advised to raise my complaints about the appeal process on my user talk page on the Discord support server.

I suppose a thank you is in order for confirming that RW's appeals/contestation process, while present on paper, is in reality a farce. This confirmation might be plausibly useful at some point.

cosmikdebris talk stalk 02:59, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Well, I was forced to sit out the last round of this, which kinda stinks. Akarlin's last message on his talk page before he had his access to that revoked seemed polite enough (though it was almost identical to the e-mail Bongolian showed off here). I'd be tempted to suggest giving him self-talk page privileges back so he can actually try to make his case (I'm having my own problems with my Reddit account, so I'm feeling a bit extra-sympathetic to people facing bans), but I was watching the last ATIM conversation about how he's really not showing any actual reduction in alt-right activity, and having now seen the e-mail he sent to Cosmikdebris, I'm noticing the politeness slipping (I doubt calling the appeals process a "farce" will win any brownie points with any mod team), so I'm starting to wonder just how much benefit of the doubt he deserves. Like, I understand his frustration, but come on, does he think he's going to win friends with petty insults?! --Luigifan18 (talk) 04:03, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Here is some sourcing on Karlin's racism.

Don't play this guys game. His claims about having converted to a far-leftist are clearly a scam. Johns (talk) 04:19, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Again, I think the insincerity angle was covered the last time around. I do thank you for finding supporting evidence, though. --Luigifan18 (talk) 04:30, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
I believe this account was Karlin [22]. Some of the other accounts read as Michael Coombs, those were obvious throwaway accounts with a very low intelligence. Johns (talk) 04:38, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Are any claims on his page poorly sourced or unsourced? CorruptUser 06:16, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
I've started to clean up the page. So far, the sourcing seems reasonable. As I noted above the white nationalist claim could use better sourcing. Bongolian (talk) 17:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I also got an email;

Hi Karma Police,

I just noticed the email function at RW. The sock puppets were not mine. If I was going to use sock puppets, I would obviously not do that while appealing my original ban on sock puppeting charges.

I would certainly not do it under the name of my own blog, LMAO. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/User:Nooceleration

It's a lame dog and pony show whose entire point seems to have been to give Bongolian et al. the pretext to deny my appeal.

So just to quickly respond to Johns who "convinced" you:

> Only a few minutes ago on his Twitter he is defending Nathan Cofnas a far-right race realist who was just sacked from Emmanuel College [1]

I defended Cofnas' free speech rights and in the next very next Tweet criticized his negative attitude towards Palestinian activist free speech rights: https://twitter.com/powerfultakes/status/1781640014805279061

I also support leftist free speech: https://twitter.com/powerfultakes/status/1779485268833148996

> He is currently heavily associated with Aporia Magazine...

How exactly? What position do I have there?

> Despite now claiming to be pro LGBT he still identifies as an eugenicist and is still a proponent of racialism which he lectures on.

I have always been pro-voluntary eugenics (and against coercive eugenics).

My actual current views on "racialism" (and other things) is described here: https://akarlin.com/soypill-manifesto/#Liberal_Race_Realism_and_Open_Borders_under_Rawlsianism

> He is still very much involved with the alt-right community despite his claims to the contrary.

This is why I make fun of rightoids near every day on Twitter.

Even several years ago my involvement with the Alt Right was marginal. Contra the lies on my page, I only ever met with Richard Spencer once (let alone attended "multiple" Neo-Nazi conferences with him or served as a "poster boy" for him).

> I have not looked into his ban here but it should be noted this guy has been blocked hundreds of times on Wikipedia.

That sock puppeting investigation Johns links to is not me. Anyone can pretend to be anybody on Wikis. I only have one Wikipedia account since 2009, User:SublimeWik.

I suspect that Johns is Oliver D. Smith, who has a well known obsession with me (by way of Emil Kirkegaard). https://akarlin.com/rationalwiki

And my 'open response' is this;

A Karlin;

The crux of my problem is that while I don't deny the possibility of a person's views changing over time, the issue appears to be your belief that all your prior history should be wiped clean immediately. Alas, this isn't true in either real life or here at RationalWiki. I will say this; if your change is genuine, and you stick with it, sooner or later someone at RW will note this and your mainspace page will change accordingly - it won't remove the earlier history, but it will note that you no longer publically support them. Johns convinced me of only one thing; that 'there has been a recent grift by alt-right/far-right influencers who have come out and tried to deny their racist past and now claim to be left-wing in recent years' [which I had vaguely noted before this] and due to your past history I think we're justified to be suspicious of claimed Damascene conversions.

I do accept you have a point about the sockpuppets. However, as I've recently seen people appeal against claims of sealioning by more sealioning I don't rule anything out. Your claim about Johns basically having a vendetta against you may or may not be true, but even if they're motivated by selfish reasons it doesn't mean the stuff they dig out is wrong. I will also highlight that Bonglian was the one who did point out earlier that you'd not actually done anything to warrant a ban - if they'd been trying to achieve this, it would be a little odd for them to effectively provide evidence against the case.

I am going to make the assumption here that your main reason for wanting a ban lifted is to edit your own page. I think I speak for most folks here to say at best this would be somewhat a conflict of interest. However, I will ask for someone to review the RW page on you and check if any claims made about your views don't have evidence to support it, as well as making sure various claims are dated so readers can come to their own conclusions to whether things from several years ago are still relevant.

Yours, KP.

Therefore, I suggest that we do roughly what we did after the City Journal hit-piece on us last year; that somebody [not me, I don't really know much about this topic] goes through the offending article and makes sure that every single claim is firmly backed up with decent, solid refs. Personally, I do think the page is a little on the long side when we consider their relative lack of notability - I mean, it appears some 90% of the refs are from their own stuff.

Now, on being a 'white nationalist'; well the issue is that Russian perspective is a bit different here - for example, 'Blacks' is often used [if I remember right] in connotation with people from the Caucasus. I would guess [from his positive mentioning of Solzhenitsyn] that Karlin's position would be as a 'slavophile'; which sometimes [but not always] shades into anti-semitism, pan-slavism [that Russia should rule all the slavs], autocracy and a general rejection of the Enlightenment. However, I will argue that it is not white nationalism because the more hardline slavophiles reject other 'whites' too, esp Germans, Scandanavians and Anglo-Saxons as 'aliens' - so it's more simple xenophobia and 'Russian exceptionalism'. KarmaPolice (talk) 18:18, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

All this nutpicking about whether or not this individual is a "white nationalist" or "white supremacist" is complete bullshit. I did some internet searching and found literally pages and pages and pages linking Anatoly Karlin to white supremacy and/or white nationalism. If you sleep with white nationalists and white supremacists, then it's completely fair to say that you are one. This pointless bickering about semantics is one of the tactics of this abhorrent crowd, like how some of them say they they are "alt-center" and not "alt-right." Big fucking deal! "Oh I was one before but I'm not one now I refuted my beliefs" Yeah, right. The evidence isn't with you on that one, either. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck... This is like the trollchild who came on here a few years back and said "Unblock me, It was my son that did it". —cosmikdebris talk stalk 21:08, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
I have also come to the conclusion that he is not worth unbanning due to trolling and general bad-faith arguments. If anyone feels that a vote is needed, it can start tomorrow. Bongolian (talk) 23:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
As it's already been 24 hours, a vote can start now. Plutocow (talk) 03:21, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Above, Wikipedia and the question of Karlin's possible socks there was mentioned. There's a current discussion on Wikipedia about that, with Karlin denying all much like here, and some of his claims about his larger activity elsewhere being disproven, but no definite evidence of socking at present. Given the parallels, may be worth a read. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 09:06, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Cosmik; I think you're forgetting [or don't know] that hardline slavophilism is in itself an odious ideology which is fit for a RW page [puts on my to-do list] - it's the underpinning for Putin's regime and by extension the invasions [his line that Ukraine isn't real is right out of their playbook]. I just saw the spectre of 'anglosplaining' raising it's head - ie trying to shoehorn something to fit Anglo definitions - and wanted to make people aware of the differences. The point that 'if you hang about with racists and Nazis and don't complain, it's reasonable comment to say you are one' is what I would chalk up to be 'fair comment', though if I was writing that article and could be bothered to do research, I may also present the alternative theory that they're just a hardline slavophile and their Venn circle overlaps fairly well with said people. KarmaPolice (talk) 09:15, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Vote on affirming Anatoly Karlins's ban once and for all

While it's obvious which way this site is leaning, Anatoly Karlin seems like the type to rules lawyer so it's probably for the best that we put this to a vote to make this official. This will be a simple two thirds majority vote to keep Anatoly Karlin permabanned. Plutocow (talk) 03:21, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

This vote has been closed. Please do not add, remove or change votes.
The result of this vote was: Akarlin remains permabanned by a vote of 11-2.


  1. Has pretty much just been trolling. Plutocow (talk) 03:21, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
  2. Bongolian (talk) 04:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
  3. Scream!! (talk) 08:29, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
  4. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 18:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
  5. 'Wanting to edit own ('lying') RW page' is hardly the best argument for returning. Their emails show that even if banned, they *do* have the ability to raise complaints, while the fact folks are giving said page 'attention' shows we do listen (though the net result is unlikely to be one that Karlin desires). KarmaPolice (talk) 19:09, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
  6. Been observing this stuff for the past while. -- Techpriest (talk) 22:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
  7. cosmikdebris talk stalk 22:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
  8. Spud (talk) 14:02, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
  9. Karlin is a well known alt-right troll, he's still complaining about RW on his Twitter [23]. Just ban this guy, it's time to move on. Johns (talk) 22:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
  10. Demonstrates through his behavior that he would only be a burden on this community. This is true regardless of whether he renounced his alt right views. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 10:33, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
  11. He shouldn't be welcome here, regardless of whether or not he's no longer an alt-rightist. FriendlySocDem (talk) 22:16, 29 April 2024 (UTC)


  1. I really want to believe Karlin's change of heart is genuine, so I don't want to tell him "leave and never, ever, EVER come back under any circumstances"; I've been on the receiving end of that myself at Know Your Meme (and may be facing something similar at Reddit), and it still freaking hurts. With that said, I'm still extremely skeptical of Karlin's claims of not being a bigoted shithead (and what I've heard here doesn't help his case), and I'd like to be able to verify that he's actually working to redeem himself before I advocate lifting the ban we currently have in place on him. In short: I don't want to weld the door shut on him, but I'm not willing to open it at this time, either. For the time being, I support the status quo of keeping him locked out and at arm's length… specifically a Gundam's arm's length. Luigifan18 (talk) 22:04, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
    You want status quo? He's already permabanned, that's status quo. This vote is just to confirm permaban since there was never a vote before. Bongolian (talk) 23:42, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
    I already answered this in my 'open reply' to them; that if their change is genuine and they stick with it, soon enough their RW page will be changed to reflect this. That is what they care about. KarmaPolice (talk) 12:35, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
    Again, maybe it's my experience from Know Your Meme and stuff I've read on TV Tropes' suspension appeal forum talking, but "permaban" to me implies "kicked out forever, will be re-expelled on sight, not subject to further discussion or revision under any circumstances, get the fuck out and never, EVER return". (See also the bans we have in place on Kenneth DeMeyer and Michael Coombs, both for damn good reason.) That's what I'm opposing in Anatoly Karlin's case. I'm in full support of an indefinite ban (i.e. a ban that will remain in place unless and until sufficient evidence emerges that the subject's bad behavior that warranted a ban has been changed for good). If Karlin has changed and can prove that he's changed, I'd like to be able to welcome him here. (We could certainly use an ex-alt-right perspective.) But if he's just trying to rebrand himself while still treating people who aren't like him like subhumans, he has no place here, and won't have a place here unless and until he learns to treat other people like, well, people. Luigifan18 (talk) 15:50, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
    I've read this argument just a couple of days ago. Your argument is basically a pedantic/linguistic one - that in reality yes, 'permanent' should read as 'indefinite'. But the truth is that from my experience some 98% of people online know what 'permaban' means in reality and it's the common terminology. Sure, bring up changing the term if you want as another ticket but to be honest I don't think it will get far on a 'does it actually matter?' response from other RW'ians. KarmaPolice (talk) 17:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
    Ah. What "permaban" "usually" means isn't really relevant to my experience; I have in fact seen (and been subjected to, hence my sympathy) it used to mean "absolutely permanent ban with absolutely no room for negotiation or adjustment" on other websites (Know Your Meme and TV Tropes, specifically; TV Tropes in particular has both permanent bans that will stand until the heat death of the universe and indefinite bans that are open to being lifted once the subject demonstrates understanding of why their behavior was wrong and commitment to not repeating said mistakes, with the latter actually being the default by their own admission and only escalating to the former in the event of stubborn refusal to improve). If "permaban" and "potentially re-negotiable indefinite ban" are treated as equivalent on RationalWiki specifically, then my complaint is mostly nullified (maybe own talk page access could be re-granted, but that may be a discussion for another time). Really, I became concerned because the name of this vote was "affirming Antony Karlin's ban once and for all", the wording of which strongly implies absolute permanence. Luigifan18 (talk) 19:21, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
    I read the last bit to be from a person who believes the person in question won't ever change. If Karlin doesn't change, yes this ban would be 'once and for all'. Permabans can be appealed and I suspect there have been times successfully - Karlin's main reason for appealing theirs was that it was done by fiat by an individual, not by a 'legal' vote by the mob. The term 'perma' may in fact stem from some now-dead forum programming system in the mists of time where the options were [say] 'a day', 'a week', 'a month' and 'perma' - ie it has no end date and thus needs a manual change from an admin rather falling off due to expiring.
    But the issue is that if you object to Karlin's perma on a technical point re: definition of 'perma' you'd have to also dispute say, KenBot's permaban. After all, it is theoretically possible at least they might get a software update and not be a stupid, lying, poorly-writing monomaniac who is impervious to reason, facts or responses from other users. Your main issue [which I fully get, as I've been driven off from a few places over the years] is prior experiences with arsehole mods who never actually self-reflect on their decisions or reconsider things like say, bans [one forum which shall remain nameless only will deign to even look at your appeals on very technical grounds ie 'you banned the wrong account' and never ever accept possibilities such as 'the mod who did this is an arsehole/idiot', 'caving in to the complaints of anonymous person(s) with no possibility of answering' or 'you cannot ban facts simply because you do not like them'.]
    So the question ultimately is 'do you trust the RW mods?' The mods here aren't some self-replicating clique or the flunkes of some God-King - if you don't like what you're seeing, you can vote them out and campaign against them. I mean, it was raised here again, wasn't it? Bonglian and I could have remained silent on the emails, memory-holed Cosmic's email and well, you are discussing this topic in the 'mods section' [I have to tell you, being a mod doesn't grant you any secret clubouse access or anything].KarmaPolice (talk) 20:28, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
    No, I trust the RW mods; the question was more "what is meant by 'permaban'". And now I'm very curious what forum you're talking about… --Luigifan18 (talk) 20:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
  2. See the above. New world (talk) 20:19, 25 April 2024 (UTC)


Rational Dude and unformatted citations

So @Rational Dude has been asked multiple times, including by myself, to properly format his citations. And yet he's still doing it (see here for the latest example). I myself have had to do his work for him several times (for examples see here and here, I've also had to replace paywalled links with archived versions and replace a goodreads link with a proper citation). It's honestly tiresome and dragging down the quality of our articles. What should be done about this? Carthage (talk) 11:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I’m about ready to start rolling back and blocking over this myself. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 11:05, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Q1; is there actually a RW page to provide a ref/style guide for this kind of thing?
Q2; is it mandated anywhere that a person adding new content must also make it all pretty too?
Q3; is it inherently wrong to think that some folks contribution to RW might be by making citations pretty, proofreading etc?
I will confess this; I have been guilty of leaving a welter of bare URLs on pages too. But you know what? I put a butt-load of effort into researching the topic, in producing content for the page, ensuring it's actually readable as a single article, locating as many decent refs I can and so on. I have tried in the past to pretty-fy refs etc, but 75% I end up doing it wrong. I hate to say it, but I suspect my talents with the codes etc are minimal and my skillsets are better served in producing actual content. After all, when building a house, the bricklayer needs the plasterer who needs the painter. You cannot complain about 'ugly refs' if the article in question doesn't exist, can you?
I will again point out that there appears to be no RW policy regarding using paywalled links. Now, I personally think it's total BS [a paywalled link is about as 'accessable' a source as a text out of print for 25 years and the nearest copy is in a closed building 100 miles away] but I have been told in the past 'theoretical' access is good enough [something which I think betrays the academic ancestory of RW]. KarmaPolice (talk) 14:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
To answer your first question, there is a section in the Manual of Style that addresses reference formatting. Given that this is RationalWiki, there is no mandate to follow these guidelines. The help article on references says that it is "bad practice to give a URL with no other information as a reference." And it is just plain lazy to stick a direct link to a paywalled site into an article without checking to see if the link has been captured by archive.is or archive.org. That's just my opinion. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 15:26, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
I've recently extended my grammar-checking activities into making references look a bit better, if that helps. --Luigifan18 (talk) 16:16, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
I'm fixing this right now, I wasn't purposely trying to neglect my responsibility, I've just been rushing. Rational Dude (talk) 18:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
I question the assumption/theory that it is 'your responsibility'. RW is not your employer, nor is it some kind of educational institution which demands submissions of work to pass a grade or something. And as Comsic points out, there is no mandate in RW for you to do it either. I suspect being blocked over this would end up being laughed out of the coop too [and totally unproductive to boot; I mean driving off productive editors because they don't conform exactly to your 'formatted citations' desires? Do you not see an issue with this?]
Let's cut to the crux of the issue; Carthage and Duce feel that bare urls 'reduce quality' of mainspace articles. I can understand that it can be annoying to that kind of user as there is no automatic manner [to my knowledge] to sniff these out without manually looking at them page by page. Therefore, I suggest we get a new Category for RW's 'Articles requiring attention' - 'Articles requiring polishing' [or similar]. I am sure there are folks on RW who'd like to/are willing to do said polishing as 'their bit'.
As for the paywalled refs; I do think we at RW really do need to have a discussion regarding what counts as a quotable source and what isn't. KarmaPolice (talk) 19:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Thank you to KP for mentioning this, they're right that this isn't really something that's punishable with a block. I do think Duce and Carthage have a point that I have to clean up and format my references, However I don't think they should punish me with a block, since that's reserved for serious offenses. I'd much rather get another opportunity to fix any linked references that need formatting. Rational Dude (talk) 20:22, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
The idea of blocking someone for badly formatted wiki markup is frankly hilarious. Nevertheless we should expect that people get things right after multiple requests.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 16:16, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────The only excuse for adding bare-ass-naked-URL citations is laziness. So, if you're doing it repeatedly, just cop to being lazy. That said, it's much worse to add bare-ass-naked-URL citations to silver or gold articles. These articles have mostly already had their citations cleaned up, so if you're doing it you're giving other people the work that you should be doing. Bongolian (talk) 18:55, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Part of the reason I brought this forward was because I was tired of doing RD's formatting for him. Carthage (talk) 19:41, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I find the practice, not restricted to RD, annoying too. It's still better than no citation. Bongolian (talk) 19:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
@Carthage Which is why I fixed it. You don't have to do it for me, I can do it myself. Plus, there's bare urls on pages that I never added them too, like Anatoly Karlin's page. Rational Dude (talk) 20:44, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

So, any traction on my idea of having a 'Articles requiring polishing' category? Not just cleaning up URLs, but also better/more pics, better layout etc? KarmaPolice (talk) 12:54, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I think it might apply to too many articles to be meaningful. One could apply it to all the unrated and bronze articles. Bongolian (talk) 17:01, 30 April 2024 (UTC)